Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JULY 2007

Eleventh Circuit Issues Important Decision on Standing to Assert Lanham Act False Advertising Claims

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

On June 22, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit issued a noteworthy decision concerning standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 1791886 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, for lack of standing, of a false advertising suit against McDonald’s by a Burger King franchisee that was a direct competitor of McDonald’s.

United StatesIntellectual Property

On June 22, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit issued a noteworthy decision concerning standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act. In Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 1791886 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, for lack of standing, of a false advertising suit against McDonald’s by a Burger King franchisee that was a direct competitor of McDonald’s. In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit declared that it was joining the Third and Fifth Circuits in applying a five-factor test to determine whether a plaintiff has so-called "prudential" standing to sue under the Lanham Act, and rejected both the "categorical approach" adopted by the Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits, which approach requires the plaintiff to be—and arguably is satisfied if the plaintiff is—a competitor of the defendant, and the more liberal standard for Lanham Act standing adopted by the First and Second Circuits.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from